WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Applications for weekly unemployment benefits set a new four-year low, the government reported Thursday, in another sign that the U.S. labor market continues to gradually improve.

Initial claims fell by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.

Claims from the prior week were revised up to 353,000 from an original reading of 351,000.

The level of claims is an indicator of whether layoffs are rising or falling. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had estimated claims would rise to 353,000 in the week ended March 17.

The four-week average of claims, meanwhile, dipped 1,250 to 355,000, just slightly above a four-year low. The monthly average provides a more accurate view of labor-market trends by reducing week-to-week volatility caused by seasonal quirks.

Claims usually range between 300,000 and 400,000 when the economy is growing. New applications for benefits fell below the key 400,000 threshold in the first week of January and have remained there since. Lately claims have settled in the 350,000 range.

Improvement in the labor market is reflected by the monthly employment figures. The U.S. economy has created an average of 245,000 jobs in each of the past three months, the fastest burst of hiring since the recession officially ended in mid-2009.

“The key point here is that the underlying trend in claims is downward, and the current level is already low enough to be consistent with payroll gains around the 250,000 mark,” said chief U.S. economist Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics.

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown.

The U.S. economic recovery chugged along in the first three months of the year, showing moderate 2.2 percent growth, the Commerce Department reported Friday, thanks largely to consumers who have ratcheted up their spending.

People bought more cars, furniture and clothes, boosting the economy even as businesses invested more cautiously and governments, constrained by post-recession budget woes, cut spending. Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, rose 2.9 percent in the first quarter, beating expectations.

...

While consumer spending was strong, other aspects of the economy appeared weak. The budget woes at all levels of government continue to hamper growth, according to the Commerce Department report. Federal government spending dropped 5.6 percent, with defense spending down 8.1 percent. Spending by state and local government dropped by 1.2 percent.

Another key reason for the slowdown was a drop in some business investment, particularly in computers and industrial equipment. That was expected, however, because tax advantages for those purchases expired at the end of last year.

1.) The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

2.) According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

3.) In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.

Quote

1.) The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote

2.) According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.

Quote

3.) In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.

You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.

Quote

1.) The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote

2.) According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.

Quote

3.) In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.

You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April

What's ironic given CARL's insitence that Obama is cooking the books to make his record look better, is that as the WSJ pointed out this weekend, if the job numbers for April were adjusted using the adjustment method in place in 2008, the adjusted April 2012 numbers would not have been 115,000 new jobs, but around 180,000 new jobs. I guess Obama needs to hire some new cooks for the books while he still has time.

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.

Quote

1.) The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote

2.) According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.

Quote

3.) In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.

You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

I spent literally two hours preparing the post you quoted. I'm honestly a bit perturbed that you ignored pretty much everything I said, cherry-picked a few details to attack and just link a couple of articles to fight for you. Not to mention the fact that you seem insistent on demeaning me, as well.

Quote

Apparently NOTHING will shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

Please refrain from hyperbole, as I have done you the courtesy. I'd like to keep this discussion civil and related to the facts as much as possible. If that's asking too much, and I feel that it may, just let me know.

Quote

I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now!

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

I said at the beginning of my post that current trends in economic growth are not nearly what they could be. I'm not contesting that. What I am disputing is your misrepresentation of statistics to imply that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is artificially deflating the unemployment numbers by unjustly kicking people out of the labor market. I have demonstrably proven this is not the case, with no response from you, most notably with my comparison of other unemployment measures to the official number.

By the way, I do hope that when the labor force participation shoots up in a month or two (from high school and college kids seeking summer jobs) that this emphasis you place on the labor force participation rate leads you to conclude that the economy is in full recovery

This article actually, for the most part, proves my point. First, notice the significant spikes in both charts, every single summer? That's the youth, entering the labor force for the summer and leaving when school starts back in the fall. Exactly as I said previously to disprove your assertion that the simultaneous population increase and labor force decrease was somehow relevant.

Second, notice that a fairly consistent pattern of year-to-year decline in labor force participation can be observed starting in 2009. Do you know when the first baby-boomers started reaching retirement age? Exactly.

Third, this is mostly an aside to our current discourse, but I must comment on the article's half-truth claim that "a fifth of all personal income is now transfer payments" with the implication that it has anything to do with Obama. First, it's worth pointing out that by far the two most expensive Federal programs of transfer payments to individuals are Social Security and Medicare- both these entitlements go to.... yes, retired people. And besides, most of the fact that transfer payments have increased as a proportion of personal income over the past few decades is due to the ever-increasing cost of medical coverage in the United States, which is a problem that long predates Obama:

(red line is transfers minus Medicare and Medicaid)

The recent spike is mostly due to increased unemployment benefits, of course- that has a disproportionate impact on this chart because when someone loses their job, their income goes from 0% to 100% transfer payments.

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

Again, I'll gladly debate you but please stop the irrelevant remarks.

Quote

As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

This has piqued my curiousity. I'm currently searching for the full article through my university's Journal/Article database but I can't seem to find it. It wasn't in Conference Board's quarterly review for spring or summer 2011. Can you shed any light on how I could find the full article?

It doesn't actually specifically mention anything about people delaying retirement above age 65 (which is what my entire assumption of "the baby boomers are turning 65 and retiring en masse just like John Boehner and the Social Security Administration said"). Regardless, just because a greater proportion of people have been delaying retirement (above age 65 or not, would like to find out though) doesn't mean that my above assertions were necessarily wrong, because a much greater bulk of people are still now entering the age group for retirement.

Besides, regardless of retirements, that doesn't change the fact that I demonstrated fairly strongly that there's no sudden increase in detached workers, which you seem to be suggesting is the case in spite of the evidence.

(Reuters) - The United States will post a budget surplus for April, the first month it will have done so since the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the Congressional Budget Office forecast on Monday.

"The Treasury realized a surplus of $58 billion in April 2012, CBO estimates, in contrast with the $40 billion deficit reported for the same month last year," the nonpartisan agency said in a statement.

The Treasury Department is scheduled to publish the official April budget statement on Thursday afternoon.

A Treasury spokesman said there has not been a monthly surplus since September 2008 when the economy was struggling in a severe downturn during the financial crisis.

A one-month surplus would not signal a turnaround in U.S. indebtedness. CBO forecast in January that the United States was headed for a fourth straight year of deficits that top $1 trillion during the current fiscal year that ends September 30.

Analysts surveyed by Reuters have forecast a smaller $30-billion surplus for April.

CBO cited some special factors at play in April, partly because of shifts in the timing of payments that would ordinarily occur in March or May but instead came in April.

As well, refunds to taxpayers who overpaid their 2011 taxes were about $14 billion lower this year than last year because some that ordinarily would have been recorded in April were made in prior months.

"Adjusted for those shifts, the surplus in April 2012 would have been $27 billion, compared with a deficit of $13 billion in April 2011," CBO said.

I spent literally two hours preparing the post you quoted. I'm honestly a bit perturbed that you ignored pretty much everything I said, cherry-picked a few details to attack and just link a couple of articles to fight for you. Not to mention the fact that you seem insistent on demeaning me, as well.

Quote

Apparently NOTHING will shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

Please refrain from hyperbole, as I have done you the courtesy. I'd like to keep this discussion civil and related to the facts as much as possible. If that's asking too much, and I feel that it may, just let me know.

Quote

I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now!

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

I said at the beginning of my post that current trends in economic growth are not nearly what they could be. I'm not contesting that. What I am disputing is your misrepresentation of statistics to imply that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is artificially deflating the unemployment numbers by unjustly kicking people out of the labor market. I have demonstrably proven this is not the case, with no response from you, most notably with my comparison of other unemployment measures to the official number.

By the way, I do hope that when the labor force participation shoots up in a month or two (from high school and college kids seeking summer jobs) that this emphasis you place on the labor force participation rate leads you to conclude that the economy is in full recovery

This article actually, for the most part, proves my point. First, notice the significant spikes in both charts, every single summer? That's the youth, entering the labor force for the summer and leaving when school starts back in the fall. Exactly as I said previously to disprove your assertion that the simultaneous population increase and labor force decrease was somehow relevant.

Second, notice that a fairly consistent pattern of year-to-year decline in labor force participation can be observed starting in 2009. Do you know when the first baby-boomers started reaching retirement age? Exactly.

Third, this is mostly an aside to our current discourse, but I must comment on the article's half-truth claim that "a fifth of all personal income is now transfer payments" with the implication that it has anything to do with Obama. First, it's worth pointing out that by far the two most expensive Federal programs of transfer payments to individuals are Social Security and Medicare- both these entitlements go to.... yes, retired people. And besides, most of the fact that transfer payments have increased as a proportion of personal income over the past few decades is due to the ever-increasing cost of medical coverage in the United States, which is a problem that long predates Obama:

(red line is transfers minus Medicare and Medicaid)

The recent spike is mostly due to increased unemployment benefits, of course- that has a disproportionate impact on this chart because when someone loses their job, their income goes from 0% to 100% transfer payments.

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

Again, I'll gladly debate you but please stop the irrelevant remarks.

Quote

As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

This has piqued my curiousity. I'm currently searching for the full article through my university's Journal/Article database but I can't seem to find it. It wasn't in Conference Board's quarterly review for spring or summer 2011. Can you shed any light on how I could find the full article?

It doesn't actually specifically mention anything about people delaying retirement above age 65 (which is what my entire assumption of "the baby boomers are turning 65 and retiring en masse just like John Boehner and the Social Security Administration said"). Regardless, just because a greater proportion of people have been delaying retirement (above age 65 or not, would like to find out though) doesn't mean that my above assertions were necessarily wrong, because a much greater bulk of people are still now entering the age group for retirement.

Besides, regardless of retirements, that doesn't change the fact that I demonstrated fairly strongly that there's no sudden increase in detached workers, which you seem to be suggesting is the case in spite of the evidence.

Also, you never commented on my unadjusted unemployment numbers

Bk,

First, making long-winded assertions devoid of either facts or logic does NOT constitute debate.

Second, you have asserted that the reduction in the workforce is simply a matter of increased retirements, with NO evidence to support that assertion (no, data from fifteen years ago cannot be extrapolated to today).

Here's some more information:

“There's no question -- people in the United States are waiting longer to retire.”

First, the Civilian noninstitutional labor force was projected to be approximately 82,626,000 in 2011, and approximately 83,189,000 in 2012.

Now, those ages 65 and over were estimated to be approximately 7,115,000 in 2011, and 7,667,000 in 2012 (a difference of approximately 552,000). With a little basic math, that means that the civilian noninstitutional labor force, without any increase in the number of those 65 and over, would still increase!

But wait, there’s more.

In 2011, the civilian noninstitutional population was estimated to be approximately 240,317,000, while in 2012 it is projected to be approximately 242,755,000, an increase of approximately 2,438,000. However the civilian noninstitutional population age 65 and over is projected to increase in 2012 from 2011 by approximately, 1,442,000.

So, if its not retirement (as you previously asserted), and the Obama administration is absolutely blameless, then where did those people go?